I would change tid from an int to an unsigned instead, he is the culprit that is promoting the unsigned to an signed.
Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Meelis Roos > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:30 PM > To: Linux Kernel list > Subject: integer overflow in i2o_block > > > Got this warning on 32-bit ppc, seems real? And it seems I2O > subsystem has no maintainer (only DPT_I2O has one)? > > CC [M] drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.o > drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c: In function 'i2o_block_transfer': > drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c:837: warning: integer > overflow in expression > > The line in question is > msg->u.head[1] = cpu_to_le32(I2O_CMD_PRIVATE << 24 | HOST_TID > << 12 | tid); > and I2O_CMD_PRIVATE is defined as 0xFF. This gets "0xFF0100 | > tid" and > fits into 32-bit unsigned but not into 32-bit signed integer properly. > Target value head[*] is defined as u32 so the claculation > does not fit > during computation? Should we mark the shiftable inputas as unsigned? > > -- > Meelis Roos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
